Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road

Object

Representation ID: 9852

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Keith Herkes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Draft Policy EMP6 - Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road will be developed for a campus-style development (primarily research and development with elements of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution)


I object to the above part of the BBC Local Plan 2040, relating to sites 761 and 764.
The reference to this proposed development as a “gateway to Bedford” is in my opinion nothing more than a grandiose title for an up-market industrial development on the outskirts of Bedford and because of the topography clearly defines it as two separate sites, split by the A421 bypass. So, it will not be a visual gateway – just a conglomeration of buildings off to the right and left for people arriving from the A1. People travelling out of Bedford along the A4280 or past on the A421 will not see anything as the road is below the adjoining ground levels.
The sites are not in sustainable locations with lack of footway and cycleway provision and infrequent public transport connection with lack of bus stops. Alternative modes of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport, should be promoted, however, the sites’ access would be clearly dominated by vehicles due to their proximity to the A421, therefore failing to meet the key, high-level objective
Water End, Green End, Top End and Church End, has restricted access for vehicles between the peak hours of 7.00 to 9.30am and 3.30 to 6.30pm (except for access) primarily to restrict the volume of traffic using the village as a “rat-run” to and from the A421 bypass. There is also major congestion at peak times around Renhold Primary School and the Church.
Water End and Green End are predominantly linear with low density built-form, primarily housing, surrounded by agricultural land. The proposals would be out of keeping, out of scale and clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish. The allocation would result in an urban built environment of significant depth, which would neither complement nor be compatible with the linear character of that part of Renhold and would contribute to unacceptable urban sprawl.

The emerging Neighbourhood Plan has found no indication that an industrial/commercial estate is required within the parish boundary and certainly no development that would inherently increase traffic, noise, pollution, destroy biodiversity and spoil the current “dark skies policy” that the Parish of Renhold currently enjoys in the “old village”.


The proposed development would adversely affect the rural setting of Renhold and lead to coalescence with Great Barford.

Mitigation.
Should by some perverse reason this proposal is accepted, then it is paramount that mitigation against the destruction of Rural Renhold is put in place.
I would suggest that the current Traffic Restriction Order (TRO) is strengthened to guard against what otherwise would be an alarming increase in traffic through the “old village”. This can be achieved by replacing the current, aging, Average Speed Cameras (ASC) with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras with the dual purpose of TRO enforcement and speed control.
Although that part of Renhold has “not suitable for HGV” advisory signage, this should be changed to an “HGV ban” except for access.
A “no right turn” for all vehicles from the development on site 761 should also be installed.
A mandatory restriction on the height of all buildings, perhaps graded to the topography.
Directional lighting with dimmed levels after midnight.
Planting of semi-mature trees on the boundary with properties in Water End and Green End.

In summary therefore, I cannot accept that a development of this nature is necessary on a green-field site, which is part of the historic Howbury Estate and something that will provide a marker for future development and thus destroying yet another tranche of the North Bedfordshire landscape.
Please remove this proposal from the 2040 Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10007

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Mr David Robertson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, which national policy says should be protected from inappropriate developments.

Adverse effect on local wildlife through loss of habitat and the effects of light and noise pollution.

Brown field sites should be considered first for development.

This type of development is not compatible with the rural character of Renhold or the dark skies policy.

This type of development is not sympathetic to the nearby low-level housing and open rural views. It would be out of scale and out of keeping with the area.

Additional traffic issues for a village which has already seen a large increase of traffic volumes since the construction of the A421 dual carriageway. This proposal would result in additional traffic through the village and more queueing at junctions. Renhold does not have street lights, or good footpaths. Additional traffic is a danger to pedestrians and speeding is an issue.

Taking into consideration the additional houses planned for St Neots Road Gt Barford, currently distinct village boundaries are being eroded.

This area is no longer a government priority re: Oxford to Cambridge arc.

Vacant office space and commercial properties currently exist in the Borough. With the introduction of new technologies, and the trend towards home working and decrease in office occupancy over the past two and a half years, what is the requirement for this development, when the Local Plan also includes many other proposals for the same type of facility.

Comment

Representation ID: 10051

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Howbury Hall Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

or the avoidance of any doubt, the Howbury Hall Estate (the Estate), fully supports the allocation of its land under Policy EMP6 and seeks to work with the Council to bring it forward for development in the manner generally set out in the draft Policy.

Following publication of the draft plan an extremely positive and productive meeting has been held between the Estate and relevant Officers of the Council to discuss the allocation and the Council’s vision for the site as set out within the draft policy criteria.

The Estate has also begun to engage with appropriate advisors and has taken the opportunity to visit and gain an understanding of the key aspects that have driven the success of other successful innovation / science parks. There have also been positive discussions with leading agents in this field, relevant educational establishments and also potential development partners with experience of bringing forward parks of this nature.

This submission builds upon the initial meeting with the Council, the evidence gathering undertaken by the Estate and the initial discussions with key market players. As a result, it seeks minor clarifications and some alterations to the detailed wording of the draft Policy. These proposed changes do not seek to alter the principle of the allocation or the key aims and objectives for the site which are wholly supported. Rather they are aimed at minimising the potential scope for differing interpretations of the Policy at the development control stage and to ensure that it is ‘Effective’ in NPPF terms of guiding, facilitating and delivering the development of the site.

Below we set out in bold italics each element of the policy / policy criterion upon which we comment followed by the Estates response. The minor changes sought are set out in response to question 6 as required.

“Land at Water End and St Neots Road will be developed for a campus-style development (primarily research and development with elements of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution)”

This initial element of the Policy is extremely important as it seeks to make clear the uses that will be permitted as part of any development at the site and will in effect be the ‘headline’ that guides future planning applications.

In discussions with officers regarding the Council’s desire to see a very high quality “campus style” development, it was acknowledged that the site will need to deliver an offer which is new and original and so extremely attractive to both the companies looking to locate into this area and also to the high skilled employees that companies of the nature need to attract.

This point has also been made clear in market feedback to the Estate. To be successful an environment must be created which in addition to high quality / high specification buildings in which people work there must also be high quality, ancillary uses that make the development attractive to and complement the lifestyle desired by those who are drawn to work there. Such elements may include some convenience retail provision, restaurants and cafés, a gym, children’s nursery, sports facilities and good quality parks and open spaces.

The development would also benefit from the provision of a hotel which would provide visitors with a convenient place to stay close to where they may be meeting or working.

Another aspect highlighted in discussions has been the potential for some small scale associated residential provision. For clarity this does not mean general housing but rather a small apartment or apart hotel element that would specifically service the park. We are advised that firms of the nature that it is hoped can be attracted to the site will tend to recruit from a wider geographical area i.e., from all parts of the country and also from overseas, Europe, North America etc. to secure the skills required. The idea of the residential element would be to enable companies within the park to rent the space for new / relocating employees. This may be for a period of perhaps 3, 6 or 12 months whilst they become familiar with the area and seek longer term accommodation or simply can be offered as part of employee packages when contracts relate to specific projects which may be for 1, 2 or 3 years and people don’t wish to relocate fully, purchase a house etc. Such aspects are not uncommon as part of developments to the north side of Cambridge associated with the science parks.

Given the above it is considered that the Policy should make clear that there is an acceptance of these kinds of ancillary uses which are required and help facilitate the delivery of a high quality campus style development of the nature envisaged. This would remove uncertainty and provide investor confidence.
“i. A research campus of approximately 30 hectares in total on two sites at Water End and St Neots Road;”

There are two points we seek to make in respect of this criterion.

Firstly, the land promoted for development within the Applicants ownership i.e., the ‘red line’ area comprises approximately 40 hectares. The policy seeks to bring forward 30 hectares of this for actual development. This leaves 10 hectares of land which will not be the subject of built development.

The Estate wishes to ensure that the additional 10 hectares can be utilised as boundary buffer planting and for biodiversity net gain purposes etc. This will assist in ensuring that generous separation of the built development from the edge of the adjacent villages can be provided.

Notwithstanding the fact that the site lies outside of the Marston Forest area the estate has already begun discussions with the Marston Forest regarding the potential for woodland planting associated within the development and sees this as an important part of the high quality campus style development that is proposed.

Secondly the criterion uses the wording a “research campus” which appears somewhat more restrictive and does not exactly reflect the main introductory wording of the Policy which states that the development will be “a campus style development primarily research and development with elements of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution).”

It is considered that the wording should be more general and reflective of this wider description rather than using the narrower term “research campus” currently proposed.

ii. Preparation by the applicant of a masterplan and design code to be completed prior to and submitted with any planning application. The master plan and design code will ensure that the site is developed as a high value business park providing primarily research and development space in a landscaped setting;

No objection is raised in respect of the need for a Master Plan and Design Code. Indeed, the Estate is keen to set a standard for the development which must be followed throughout.

However, the use of the term “high value” business park leaves some room for interpretation and it is unclear how whether something is high ‘value’ would be assessed. We seek a change to this wording to reference ‘high quality’ rather than value.

We also again seek to remove any inconsistency with the main policy description.

vi. Development should be designed where possible to preserve and where opportunities arise, enhance the significance of heritage assets and the contribution made by setting…….

Whilst there is no objection in principle to this criterion and scope exists as noted above within the 40 hectare land ownership to ensure that the setting of nearby land, property and in particular heritage assets is preserved, is difficult to see how development of the land, which is currently open agricultural fields, located some distance from the heritage assets referenced, could realistically deliver enhancements to their significance and setting.

Comment

Representation ID: 10065

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Avison Young

Following a review of the above Development Plan Document, we have identified that one or more proposed development sites are crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets. Details of the sites affecting National Grid assets are provided below.
Electricity Transmission
Development Plan Document Site Reference

Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road
Asset Description - Gas Transmission Pipeline, route: HUNTINGDON TO STEPPINGLEY
Gas Transmission Pipeline, route: PETERBOROUGH TO WHITWELL
To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect their assets. Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect National Grid’s assets. We would be grateful if you could check that our details as shown below are included on your consultation database:

Object

Representation ID: 10066

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Margaret Dean

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

My Objection to the proposed Campus & possible warehouse/manufacturing at Water End
& St Neats Road, Renhold
From a traffic point of view the effects of this development will be horrendous for Renhold along every stretch of road. We already have "speed watch" teams trying to assist the police, who do not have time to monitor vehicle speeds. It is very dangerous to park on many parts the village roads, as visibility is not good around bends, and an increase in through traffic will make this problem far worse.
If the project is sanctioned, then by way of mitigation there must be an agreement to the effect
that no HGVs from the Water End site are allowed to turn right into Water End and hence
through Green End and the rest of the village. An HGV ban would, of course, be preferable.
There must also be an agreement between the BBC and Police that the TRO is regularly enforced and ideally this should be with the installation of combined Average Speed and Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, to replace the aging ASCs currently in place.
Without these restrictions the "old village" will become a traffic nightmare and destroy the village nature of our roads to the detriment of all who live there.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that it will not be possible to mitigate the effects of the necessary lighting for a 24 hour facility of warehousing / manufacturing, and that there will be noise day & night

Object

Representation ID: 10097

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Andrew Chinn

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Objection to Policy EMP6 Business Park,
Land at Water End and St Neots Road, in Bedford Local Plan 2040

I wish to register my objection to the proposal for a business park on land at Water End and St Neots Road, reference Policy EMP6, sites 761 and 764. I am a resident of Green End Renhold who lives close to the proposed business park and, like many others, will be directly impacted if this development goes ahead.

Renhold is a tranquil rural community with no light pollution from streetlights or large office complexes, which help maintain clear star lit skies. The noise, air pollution, and light pollution that the proposed development will bring will damage the current rural environment. The proposals would be visually intrusive on the local landscape, and harmful to its character and qualities. The resulting impact on the daily lives and amenity spaces of the nearby residents in Green End and Water End, and for all residents along the main road through Renhold, will be significant.

I see no need for a business park at this location. Water End and Green End consist primarily of low-density residential housing surrounded by agricultural land. The proposals would be out of keeping, out of scale, and disproportionate. With so many other under-utilised sites and empty offices in and around Bedford, I fail to see the requirement for a new business park at this location. The proposed sites are not gateway locations into Bedford and are not on the urban boundary of Bedford. Instead, site 761 adjoins the settlement policy area of Renhold Green End, and site 764 does not adjoin any settlement policy area.
Whilst the proposed sites are intended to accommodate research and development activities, the draft policy also makes provision for manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution operations. I have a concern that the manufacturing, warehousing and distribution elements will ultimately dominate the sites, if not immediately, then over several years as businesses come and go. This will lead to an even greater negative impact on the local community and environment, bringing more noise and pollution, especially from increased traffic and HGV activity.

I work in a small business park near Cambridge and have witnessed firsthand how a business park originally built to attract small research and technology companies, has evolved into a site dominated by large warehouses and distribution units, with a significant increase in traffic and noise throughout the day. There are also issues with lack of car parking during the day, and HGV’s using access and local roads as overnight lorry parks. Despite the best of intentions, how can you ensure that this will not happen in and around the proposed business park?

I also see more vacant offices on the business park where I work, as more technology companies adopt hybrid working practices with more people working from home. Do we need to build more research and development offices in this climate? If the proposed development it is at all questionable, then why would the council allow it to go ahead, destroying local green spaces and creating additional unnecessary environmental issues?
My biggest concern is the impact on local road infrastructure and traffic through and around Renhold village. The village already has serious traffic problems. The local highway network is already exhausted and at capacity. The proposed business park would result in a significant increase in traffic movements with additional commuter traffic, delivery vans, and HGVs, in and around the village of Renhold, bringing with it pollution and road safety issues, detrimental to the local area.

Huge congestion already exists on the A421 roundabout adjacent to the sites throughout the day, particularly at peak times. Queues on the A241 slip roads and the A4280 St Neots Road can be horrendous. There is a TRO through Renhold that is primarily to restrict the volume of traffic using the village as a “rat-run” to and from the A421 bypass roundabout. However, this is not enforced and is largely ignored as motorists use the narrow road through Renhold to avoid the congestion.

Even if the A421 bypass roundabout is redesigned, the proposed development will only add to the volume of traffic. With the greater congestion at the A421 bypass roundabout that the proposed business park will bring, the traffic situation through Renhold will only get worse. Commuters, delivery, and HGV drivers travelling to the park, especially from northern regions around Bedford will inevitably, start using the Renhold village road as their “rat-run”. The situation would quickly become unsustainable.
I also foresee an increase in traffic along Wentworth Drive, Norse Road, and through Bedford as office workers, delivery vans and HGVs approach the business park from routes other than the A421 bypass. Increased traffic past Renhold Lower and Mark Rutherford schools are likely.

Existing traffic volumes and the crumbling village road network are not suitable for the additional traffic that the business park will bring. The Renhold village road through Green End is very close to the front of the people’s homes, is narrow, unlit, and the path merges into the road and disappears altogether in some places. Increased traffic through the village as a result of the proposed business park will introduce new road safety concerns.

The additional traffic noise and pollution that residents in Renhold will be subjected to, and the impact on their living quality and amenity spaces must be considered. A study should be undertaken to investigate the impact of vibration caused by an increase in HGV traffic on houses close to the road through Renhold and Green End, especially the multiple listed buildings. The council should not be entertaining any plans that will lead to increased use of the local road through Renhold as a “back-door” into the business park. As a minimum, the TRO must be properly policed and enforced, and HGVs banned from using the Renhold village road.

A proposed new road layout, where Water End is blocked off and the village road diverted to join a new access road into the business park off the A421 bypass roundabout is dangerous. Residents travelling from Renhold to the A421 bypass roundabout will be faced with a right turn across the main access road into the proposed business park. Whether this is a right turn at a junction or a mini roundabout, it introduces a new road safety risk.

The sites are not in sustainable locations with lack of footway and cycleway provision and infrequent public transport connection with lack of bus stops. Alternative modes of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport, should be promoted, however, the sites’ access would be clearly dominated by vehicles due to their proximity to the A421, therefore failing to meet the key, high-level objective of the NPPF of ‘achieving sustainable development’.

I trust that you will understand my point of view and that you accept that the proposed development would do nothing to enhance the village of Renhold. Please seriously reconsider the construction of a new business park at this location.

Object

Representation ID: 10106

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Ingrid Lennox

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I would like to lodge a very strong objection to the proposed development allocation on Land at Water End and St. Neats Road covering 30 hectares in total.
The village of Renhold has a distinctive character, with its five historic Ends, and no street lighting, sparsely populated and rural. Any development on the allocated sites, elevated from the surrounding landscape, would clearly destroy the rural setting and be totally out of keeping. It would destroy the attraction and the ambiance of the village and would dominate the entry to the village from the A421 approach. The elevation and location of the proposed development are entirely inappropriate.
The need for a Science Park in a beautiful rural setting has to be seriously questioned. Even more disastrous for the village would be warehousing and distribution centres, also included in the application and the more likely result. Moreover, once the principle of development on the site has been approved, there is a risk that the site could be re-allocated for alternative uses - it would seem this would be a more likely outcome than a prestigious Science Park, and would be hugely to the detriment of our attractive rural village. Such applications should be confined to established business park areas and brownfield sites - why destroy beautiful Grade 2 agricultural land and wildlife habitat?
I trust that the Council will take into consideration the strong opposition from village residents to an unnecessary development which would destroy the rural nature of Renhold.

Comment

Representation ID: 10118

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Stephen King

This development is not in keeping with the village of Renhold and if approved will not stop there. The Council will not be happy until development is complete all along the A421 from the M1 to the A1. This land was greenbelt. The landowner has just received a grant for new stock fencing on the northern section from the government. This means stock is required to grass this pasture for 5 years. This type of development should be kept to the industrial areas of Bedford. Any development in Renhold should be residential and restricted to infill and small developments of up to 5 residential properties at a time and of a rural type.
This development would lead to lighting which is detrimental to the village let alone the effect to wildlife in the area. This development needs to be forgotten about. The access roundabouts at this development are already a nightmare at rush hour times.
A new access to the A421 between this access point and the Sandy access coming to Bedford just East of the Lidl/Waitrose area needs to be built and infill in this area before any thought of development at site 764/761.

Object

Representation ID: 10121

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Marisa Chinn

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Re: Bedford Local Plan 2040 – Policy EMP6 Business Park
Development of agricultural land at Water End, Renhold

I am very disappointed to see the proposals being put forward for the farming land near my home. I moved here just over 3 years ago because I believed Renhold was a quiet rural village and that was exactly the type of place I wanted to live. I love how dark and quiet it is here at night and we can enjoy the starry skies, the wildlife is abundant, we've enjoyed seeing all types of birds here, deer etc, I am concerned that could change with this development.

I see many buildings around Bedford that are empty, this makes me question why these are not being used instead of a new build and what happens if these new units can't be filled as proposed, who knows what they will be allowed to be used for - warehousing, manufacturing, both could be noisy and light polluting.

I was surprised how busy the road here has become recently and can see how it is used as a short cut between the other side of Bedford travelling out to the A1. I think this new development will add to the problem. The road directly outside our home is narrow, there is no kerbing and HGVs passing each other here is not safe, it would be an accident waiting to happen.

I'm tired of fighting proposals that would ruin this village, we've had two proposals for housing developments at the other end of the village, then the East West Rail development and now this. I can only hope this project does not go ahead.

Comment

Representation ID: 10128

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Colin Claindre

I am writing to oppose the proposed development at Water End. My reasons are as follows:
There are much better options for a new Science Park development than bringing Renhold into the urban extension. Think of Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick, for example.
There are also several brown field sites in the town and along Bramham Road north of Beverly Crescent, Kingsway and the Charles Wells brewery site in Queens Park; all of which already have the capacity and infrastructure needed for such a large development
Renhold, as a Group 3 village and we would like it to stay that way.

Object

Representation ID: 10130

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: - Whither

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I vehemently oppose the plan for once again choosing to develop Renhold, a small rural village. You have already more than doubled the village with the developments along Norse Road and now you want to take advantage of us again.
The village roads are not fit for purpose for the traffic that they carry now. The surface is breaking up and the sheer volume of traffic is making pedestrians' life fraught with danger
We do not have the infrastructure to support a development such as this. The bus service to and from town is irregular and tedious as it does not travel directly to and from the town.
Stop. Think. Cancel.

Object

Representation ID: 10133

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: - Shanthissani

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I strongly oppose your plans to include Renhold into the urban extension. Here are my reasons for that view:
• We are currently addressing the need for traffic calming measures along Hookhams Lane as traffic is too fast and dange ro us. Expanding the number of traffic movements in and through the village boundary will only add to the problem that has already been identified as hazardous.
• We already have a serious traffic problem in the village, with approximately 2000 cars passing along the Water End junction to the bypass per day and 2500 travelling along Ravensden Road and the TRO seems to be unenforceable. More traffic would be intolerable.
• Why have you not done any traffic modelling?
• Is there a safety highways report as there are no continuous footpaths in Renhold and, in spite of the ASC at Green End to Top End and the VAS at Hookhams Lane, Ravensden Road and Green End, cars continue to speed between the two devices.
• This would do nothing to aid village cohesion. In fact, it would divide us.

Object

Representation ID: 10135

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Simon Russell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to you to explain my objections to your proposal for a Science Park in Renhold and these are my reasons:


• Renhold has a 'dark skies' policy'. Surely a huge development such as that proposed at Saiph End would jeopardise this.
• We already have 3 substantial new developments in Renhold along Norse Road and we now have 1434 houses in the parish. This proposal would most certainly remove any rural identity that we have left.
• The area around Water End and St Neots Road currently consists of low­ density housing. How does the proposed new settlement fit in with the rural character of this village?
• It would appear that we will need extensive road development with several modifications to the existing roundabouts needed to access the proposed new development. Surely this is neither cost effective nor beneficial to a rural environment.

Object

Representation ID: 10136

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: S Mitchell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to oppose the proposed development at Water End and St Neats Road My reasons are as follows:
There are much better options for a new development than bringing Renhold into the urban extension.
There are also several brown field sites in the town and along Bramham Road north of Beverly Crescent, Kingsway and the Charles Wells brewery site in Queens Park; all of which already have the capacity and infrastructure needed for such a large development and you have already identified Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford as growth areas, both of which will have the infrastructure to support this madcap scheme.
Renhold is a Group 3 village. I would like it to stay that way. This development would bring so much more traffic into the village. Where is your traffic modelling? Where is your reflection? Where is the infrastructure to support such a major development? Where will you put the sheep that are currently grazing at Water End?
This is poorly thought out, illogical and in the wrong place.
Please think again, conduct traffic surveys and traffic modelling, see the sheep and the biodiversity that will be dispossessed of a home and cut this application from your 2040 Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 10138

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: John Rivers

I write to register my disapproval to the proposed Employment Development at Water End & St Neots Road, Renhold

From my understanding of the plans for the Renhold site, the narrow village roads just will not cope with the increase in the volume of traffic . There is already a big congestion problem outside the school, and the same can happen when events are held at the Church. There is no room to pass parked vehicles

The land in question for this site is currently used to grow wheat, and for sheep to graze on. This country needs to better feed itself without foreign imports, upon which it relies too heavily . To build on such land makes no sense.

If this Development is allowed to go ahead inevitably the land owner will wish to build houses for the people who come to work there, meaning not just the loss of more arable & pasture land, but also a very probably joining of the gaps between Bedford and Renhold, or Gt Barford and Renhold .

I object to Policy EI\/IP6 in the strongest terms.

Object

Representation ID: 10140

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Kelsey Ginger

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal.
The government has recognised that such a scheme embracing our local area is no longer necessary and the Oxford to Cambridge Arc has been scrapped.
Why would you even entertain the idea that this would be acceptable in the current economic climate?
Please consider the revised working practices post pandemic.
There are hundreds of empty office spaces in the town and yet you are proposing to destroy open countryside. For what?

Object

Representation ID: 10141

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr - Anbar

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Previous applications for large scale development in the village of Renhold have been rejected citing 'demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the open countryside'. As nothing has changed in the interim, presumably this reason for rejection also applies to the current application.
I would urge you to reject this opportunistic application as it will cause irreparable harm to the residents of Renhold and will change its distinct rural character forever.

Object

Representation ID: 10144

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Jacqueline Croot

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to object to this shocking proposal for a Science Park in Renhold.
Any structures and associated infrastructure constructed on the proposed sites, particularly large distribution and warehouse units, would have an unacceptable height and scale.
They would be imposing on nearby residential units and prominent within its rural landscape context, particularly given the elevated topography and openness of the land.
The proposals would be visually intrusive on the local landscape, harmful to its character and qualities.
You must ask yourselves these questions, 'Do we really need this development or is it just blue sky thinking gone crazy? Is this the right location for development? What legacy are you creating for future generations by destroying the rural way of life chosen by the people who live here?
Please stop this from happening. Be realistic. Without a Cambridge or Oxford postcode, this project, if it really is for a cutting edge science park, is already dead in the water.

Object

Representation ID: 10147

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Tim Shue

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

To whom it may concern,
I strongly object to the proposed new Science Park at Water End. All it will do for Renhold is create mayhem, and pollution. The A421 roundabout is vital for reasonable access to our village, and will surely have to be closed for some time to enable construction to go ahead. Lorries will bring noise, and pollute our air unnecessarily, and Water End itself, a small collection of houses, will be obliterated.
The village already has serious traffic problems, and heavy goods vehicles should not be allowed through, with restricted entry during the day time. Add to that the proposals for a new rail-way line far too close to the village, and regular plans being put forward to build hundreds of new houses in and around the North East countryside, and we have to wonder why the authorities have such an aversion to any form of village life.
We are NOT part of Bedford, and have no wish to be. Please listen to the views of those who you seek to destroy, and cancel this proposal now.

Comment

Representation ID: 10149

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: R Everett

I am broken hearted by your proposals in Renhold. You seem intent on totally destroying what is a beautiful village. Water End, essentially a small collection of dwellings, will be sacrificed for a 30 hectare project that is unnecessary, poorly planned and clearly in an inappropriate area.
Why not put this development at Kempston Hardwick or Little Barford where there will be significant new settlements with all the infrastructure that is needed to support such an idea rather than cementing over beautiful green fields that are needed to support food production, health and wellbeing of residents and biodiversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 10150

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Chris Knights

To whom it may concern
I am writing to you today to object to this proposal for a Science Park
Why?

• Renhold villagers will suffer untold harm from disruption through construction to operational phase of this project-particularly as it is very likely that our small village roads could be made the designated route for any construction traffic into and out of our virgin arable land.
• I am also concerned about ongoing the noise pollution (during all phases) and I cannot see how any mitigation will prevent that.
• Any development here will significantly increase the already huge amount of traffic travelling in and through Renhold ignoring the TRO
• I cherish the open countryside and the wildlife who have also chosen to live here. Your development will destroy both.

Please take my concerns seriously and reject this application now.

Object

Representation ID: 10151

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Graham Crouch

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to object.
The land that you have identified for this development is elevated with its highest points located in the north and gradually falling towards the bypass and beyond to the south-east.
Any development on the land would be prominent within the open and rural landscape context.
Please stop to consider the residents who have chosen to live in a rural village with a dark sky policy.
You must cancel this project immediately as it is yet another vanity project just like East West Rail that is neither needed nor wanted.

Object

Representation ID: 10152

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Dee Crouch

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal for a Science Park in open countryside which comprises the precious green gap between Water End Renhold and the roundabout leading to the A421 and the A4280.
Brownfield sites should be considered first before proposing development on greenfield sites.
Previously developed land in or immediately adjoining the urban area of Bedford should be utilised in the first instance, with the opportunity to adapt against climate change, rather than encroaching into the open countryside.
Take a look at the wildflower verges and the sheep grazing in the field and think long and hard before concreting over it, as biodiversity once lost, will not be recovered in our life time.
You have a duty to leave a lasting legacy for future generations-a legacy of which you can be justifiably proud.
If you decide to go ahead with this you will be damned for an eternity.

Object

Representation ID: 10153

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr - Nokes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to the proposal. The proposed site at Water End/Green End, Renhold is unsuitable, out of keeping with the landscape, and is highly likely to encourage further development.

There will be pollution from noise & light, which will be very difficult to minimize as the houses in Water End and Green End sit on ground which is lower

The increase in the volume of traffic, and therefore the increase in the number of speeding vehicles, will be unmanageable.

Loss of any farming land is not what is needed in England at this time. This country needs to better feed itself without foreign imports, upon which it relies too heavily. To build on such land makes no sense.

Comment

Representation ID: 10154

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: HN Worthington

I object to the proposal. The proposed site at Water End/Green End, Renhold is unsuitable, out of keeping with the landscape, and is highly likely to encourage further development.

There will be pollution from noise & light, which will be very difficult to minimize as the houses in Water End and Green End sit on ground which is lower

The increase in the volume of traffic, and therefore the increase in the number of speeding vehicles, will be unmanageable.

Loss of any farming land is not what is needed in England at this time.This country needs to better feed itself without foreign imports, upon which it relies too heavily. To build on such land makes no sense.

Object

Representation ID: 10157

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr - Monlaf

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to this this proposed development, as if permitted, it would lead to an increase in traffic movements to and from the site on already congested junctions.
Any significant increase in traffic movements would lead to conditions detrimental to highway safety and convenience.
Please examine any background data held by the developer and the police and see this application for what it is-speculative, opportunistic and of absolutely no intrinsic value to the existing inhabitants of Renhold or, indeed, North Bedfordshire.
A science postcode with an MK postcode will NOT bring any kudos to Bedford as NOONE will want to work there.

Comment

Representation ID: 10160

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

Your proposal for a campus-style development (primarily research and development with elements of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution) is preposterous.
Renhold is a rural village and the arable fields that you are suggesting for development are identified as important green gaps in open countryside.
The sites are not gateway locations into Bedford as they do not abut the urban boundary of Bedford. Instead, the northern site adjoins the settlement policy area of Renhold Green End (a small nucleus of residential units), and the southern site does not adjoin any settlement policy area.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that a Science Park with a MK postcode will be a success, so go back to the drawing board and think again and do not destroy what is left of our green and pleasant land.

Comment

Representation ID: 10162

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

I believe it very important to provide a view on the proposed science park development adjoining the village of Renhold . As a resident of one of the villagers that would be directly impacted, Renhold, I feel duty bound to raise my concern
Please advise me why existing allocated developments in the borough have not received the focus they should have and why this new site is being promoted? In November 2020, there were approximately 68,916 sqm of office units and 90,760 sqm of industrial units available in the Borough. Instead of allocating more 'strategic road network' employment sites, the Council should focus on managing and encouraging the development of the existing 3 allocated sites, being land at Medbury Farm (AD11), land west of 8530 (AD17) and Bedford River Valley Park (AD23), totalling 72 ha, where development has not yet even started.
The proposed sites are not even in sustainable locations, with a lack of footway and cycleway provision, infrequent public transport connection with a distinct lack of bus stops. Alternative modes of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport, should be promoted, however, the sites' access would be clearly dominated by vehicles due to their proximity to the A421. This therefore fails to meet the key, high-level objective ofthe NPPF of 'achieving sustainable development'?

There is direct competition with the proposed new settlement and related employment provision at Little Barford, which is only 7 miles/llkm to the north-east of the allocation sites, is an additional fact that requires attention.

Of main concern is the disregard for the Countries EHH strategic policy (England's Economic Heartland, where Bedford is located within). The strategy sets out to focus on decarbonisation of the transport system by harnessing innovation and supporting solutions which create green economic opportunities; and promote investment in digital infrastructure as a means of improving connectivity, in order to reduce the need to travel. These proposals contradict this strategy and fail to:

• Support the delivery of low carbon transport by working towards reduced congestion, digital connectivity, and a net zero carbon system by 20401
• Promote connectivity and accessibility in new development, and link new and existing communities
• Support opportunities for active travel and green infrastructure
• Promote and support infrastructure development which reflects the ambitions of the three preceding principles.

I am sure that when minds are better focused and all factors provided by all parties, a better decision in selecting this site can be arrived at by focusing on the outstanding development of existing approvals granted by the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 10163

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: C Purser

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Science Park inRenhold
This proposal runs counter to the policy of restraint upon new developments in open countryside and Villages and such areas as Water End and Green End inRenhold should, in any case, be limited to that which contributes to and respects the individual character of the Village. This does not respect the individual characteristics Of the Village.
The policy also states that there will be a presumption against granting Planning permission for deve1opment, except for specific, demonstrable needs. There is no specific or demonstrable need.
Renhold has no need for additional employment, so please reject this application and preserve this parcel of open countryside which is so precious to the Renhold community.

Comment

Representation ID: 10164

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: James Leydon

The plans for a science park in Renhold are ridiculous.

• There is no need for a science-campus proposal in this location.

• Bedford is and never will be a science or research location like Cambridge or Oxford.

• This proposal is in direct competition with the proposed new settlement and related employment provision at Little Barford, which is only 7 miles/11km to the north-east of the allocation sites.

• Why not put your warehouses there instead where there will be less impact on rural life and, importantly, new infrastructure to support such a vast project?

Please listen to your electorate and act responsibly. This plan is ill conceived. So please think again.